This snippet appears courtesy of Independent Lawyer magazine. Its author, Alex Wade, ponders the paralegal…
Paralegals. Who are they and what do they do? In one of my old firms, a long time ago, they were deployed for two things – photocopying and the ferrying of bundles of documents. Occasionally, a particularly adept paralegal would be favoured with a more complex task, such as answering the phone or ushering a client into a conference room. But such brushes with the real drama of fee-earning were doomed to evanescence. The paralegal was a mere auxiliary, destined forever to do the jobs that trainee solicitors felt were beneath them.
Now, of course, paralegals are a very different breed. They even have their own professional body, the Institute of Paralegals, one of whose avowed aims is the creation of “professional support for paralegals.” Perhaps, then, the para-paralegal cometh, but meanwhile the Institute has a thorny issue on its hands: how to deal with Clause 58 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, currently wending its way through Parliament?
The Bill is designed to extend the powers and rights of audience of the Crown Prosecution Service’s very own brand of paralegal, the Designated Case Worker (DCW). DCWs already make appearances in Magistrates’ Courts in simple (usually road and traffic) cases where the defendant pleads guilty. Clause 58 will unleash them to greater effect, allowing them to conduct summary trials where the defendant has entered a ‘not guilty’ plea and also to deal with bail applications and anti-social behaviour orders. The rationale appears to be that the DCWs in question have already amassed a welter of experience within the CPS. They know the Magistrates’ Court system as well as anyone; with training and practice, they will develop the requisite advocacy skills.
There is plenty of opposition to the notion of the paralegal Perry Mason. A Law Society briefing note says that “the proposal is an expedient means to save money which may have a very detrimental effect on due process.” Des Hudson, the Law Society’s Chief Executive, expands thus: “We have serious concerns on the extension of powers for DCWs. Serious cases should be dealt with by properly-qualified personnel who are responsible to the court.”
It is perhaps no surprise to learn that the Law Society doesn’t think paralegals should do the work of solicitors. But what does Hudson mean when he alludes ominously to “personnel who are responsible to the court”? Is he suggesting that the paralegal, by definition, is a reckless, fey and fickle individual? Someone forever condemned to irresponsibility, no matter that a cursory glance at the Institute of Paralegals reveals it to be eminently transparent, well-intentioned and, yes, responsible?
Hudson is not alone. Here’s Tim Dutton QC, the chairman of the Bar Council, on the idea of paralegals in the courts: “It is vital that the prosecution of cases is not delegated to lay people who are not properly qualified. Designated case workers cannot owe the same duty to the court as a barrister or solicitor.” Dutton has also said that “qualified lawyers are under a strict duty to be independent. Unqualified workers are not.”
Here, then, is the rub. According to those at the helm of the two leading professional bodies in UK law, the paralegal owes a lesser duty to the court than solicitors or barristers. What does this mean? That paralegals are more likely than solicitors and barristers to mislead the court? That they will have a tendency to ride roughshod over the rules of evidence? That they’ll covertly listen to football matches on their mobile phones in court because they just don’t care? That Clause 58 is a harbinger of anarchy?
A happy contrast to this doomsday scenario is evident if we turn our gaze to those who are properly-qualified. Their constancy, fidelity to ethical principles and integrity is never less than obvious, unless it’s not. But if it isn’t, there’s always a very good reason, as for example when an evil paralegal has done the type of things that only unqualified, anarcho-paralegals do. These rare and exceptional circumstances remind us of the need to ensure that everyone in the law is as properly-qualified as possible.
But I have a confession to make. I haven’t renewed my Practising Certificate for a few years. I am therefore someone who was once properly qualified, and who is still qualified, but I am no longer properly properly-qualified. Perhaps, indeed, I’m closer now to the paralegals I knew at the beginning of my legal career, those who did all the jobs that I, as a trainee, was desperate to evade. I cast my mind back to those halcyon days – where are they now, those nice and helpful paralegals?
A Google search later reveals that three of them have become high-flying barristers. My guess is that they were properly-qualified all along. I wonder what they make of Clause 58?
- Written by admin
- Filed under Legal Business
- Leave a comment
